No matter which way you dice it, artificial intelligence has been one of the major issues of our modern age. I am not the first to harp on larger detriments, though I will admit that it’s made a fool of me in the past 12 months. If you remove exterior circumstances, I recognize how A.I. is addictive. During this time, I’ve listened to several podcasts and YouTube videos analyzing what the greater appeal of this form is, and, for all of the tragedies to come, it has the same compulsory joy you’d get while gambling, albeit with a more artistically fraudulent bent.
Before I dig into the larger cautionary tale, I start with some admittance. There will always be some thrill in immediacy. The Safdie Brothers have brought that sensation to film, but few have brought it to a class of unqualified artists and poets as successfully as A.I.’s many highly financed programs. As someone who cannot mold an elaborate image with pencils and markers, there is something to letting your imagination run loose. Type into the box what you want, and a minute later, you have a cobbled version of your fantasy. It hits like a dopamine rush, especially when it looks right enough. I’ve never had it look “complete,” but it taught me that you just have to learn the secret language to get halfway there.
Of course, the beauty of art is that we’re not all at the same level of competence. What we each create brings something unique to the table, and I’d argue it’s an instinct there from birth. For those who have had families, I’m sure the juvenile crayon drawings of stick figures with noodle hair hold some sentiment. For those who are gifted, it goes even further to watching them develop something even more breathtaking. For me personally, I am attracted to a person’s flaws and think it encapsulates a more interesting subtext than any creation that A.I. generated art would have you believe. While I treat this as an impulsive activity that I’m constantly trying to kick, the morbidity at finally having your sporadic thoughts able to turn into some Monstro Elisasue has momentary satisfaction, but I never imagine it as aspirational, or something that should be sold.
At the same time, this past year has found me discovering that art I would classify under “good” has been manipulated in some respect. The most infamous example is Brady Corbett’s The Brutalist (2024), which used the technology to edit characters’ accents to better suit the material. Elsewhere, I witnessed The Beatles receive a Grammy nomination for a song that was saved from technological obscurity because of similar modulation. Podcasts that have enhanced my view of the world, like Hidden Brain, are actively pushing subscriptions to A.I. sponsors that will better your life. Finally, an artist who I think is pioneering hip-hop production, JPEGMAFIA, has admitted to repurposing not an old song for the sample, but the likeness of a deceased artist’s voice to sing his own personalized phrasing. As far as I know, the artist never sang those words and, quite frankly, makes the whole act more dubious, even if it fits with the radical production technique that I’m generally in favor of. To make myself look worse, Spotify is still a major proponent of my life even though it notoriously released an inferior A.I. version of Wrapped last year and continues to promote artists who don’t exist.
Like Photoshop, the answer may simply be that it’s how the tools are used. What was once complaining about magazines creating unhealthy beauty standards by trimming women’s waistlines has evolved into a larger ethical debate, and one that I am equally in fear of. For as much as Corbett and JPEGMAFIA are using A.I. to tweak their work for better results, the general public hasn’t been on the same page. Even the suggestion of “moderation” feels like it has gone out the window. Now, when I submit short stories to Amazon, I have to check a box confirming that I didn’t use A.I. to craft my work. Given that some have made a mint on the market this way, I understand their worries… even if it doesn’t excuse Jeff Bezos deciding to pay creatives less and starting so around the time of his overpriced wedding.
This is the conflict reminiscent of self-checkout machines at retailers. Who wants to deal with a human, possibly having a bad day to the point they’ll not get you through without one or two mix-ups, when a machine has a simpler touchscreen that has gotten me in and out of Home Depots before in under 60 seconds? As people criticize Gen-Z for having “the stare” due to a lack of socialization around small talk, it’s amazing how much we’re just feeding into the problem, allowing tech oligarchs to dictate what we must have in our lives. Does everything need an app? That’s beside the point, yet I also believe that America’s problem stems from reaching the plateau where everything that could be useful was available, but now it needs to be altered for the sake of profits over functionality. At a certain point, having the better-than-the-last-best camera on your phone is meaningless.
I’m not saying that’s why we’re here, but it explains certain acceleration and why I’ve been in favor of digital regression. I could never go off-grid, but I’ve found that my life isn’t worse off because I miss one or two updates. Even the task of performing analog behaviors that require more effort and frustration has its own methodical romanticization. The impulse to have everything minutes later sounds appealing until the effort is lost, and the sentimentalism that comes with the journey never existed. Maybe you’ll find something that brings you joy, but I’ve found that crafting a world not dependent on computer assistance is helpful. For example, I’ve taken up learning new hobbies, and while I’m a terrible sport at wood carving (want to know how I got these scars?), I put the balloon-shaped duck on my shelf as a sign of the six or seven hours I spent fumbling through. I could buy a better duck, but it’ll never be mine.
I am sure one word comes to a certain skeptic’s mind: hypocrite. How can I both recognize the perceived value of A.I. while bemoaning its impact? The answer is, of course, cognitive dissonance. However, I think the rapid advancement of technology has kept me worried for some time, and it has felt especially prominent in 2025 because no matter where I’ve looked, there’s something that has been tampered with by a computer. This isn’t just a civilian act. Noteworthy artists like Timbaland are playing with its potential. Tributes to fallen celebrities pollute TikTok by the same afternoon. It has even come to the fact that the president is actively using A.I. as a modernized version of nationalist propaganda meant to make him look strong and larger than life, like the star of an old '80s shoot ‘em up. The man in those posters is a man who never existed, who has never given the world a “Medbed,” and yet it defines the zeitgeist that is presented to the rest of the world. When leadership is feeding on artifice and conspiracy, who is responsible for controlling the creative output?
It would be too much to go over everything that now exists in this administration’s ledger that is computer-generated. It feels depressing and ironic because, if nothing else, it’s taking jobs from artists who could help develop an in-house style for the president that would have more of an enduring legacy. Instead, it’s a lot of images reminiscent of better things that are now soiled by bigotry and ego. Apocalypse Now (1979) is officially associated with Chicago I.C.E. Raids. Hayao Miyazaki’s style has been used to celebrate the separation of families. Kenny Loggins now has “Danger Zone” related to an A.I. video of the president dumping sewage/feces on peaceful protestors. Canadian kids' icon Franklin the turtle had to put out a statement when his likeness was used to shoot down a boat. The one upside was that Sabrina Carpenter got them to take down a video about raids featuring her song “Juno” which, no joke, is a winking song about pregnancy. Efforts to make messaging feel “real” have all but failed.
January started with the traditional farewell speech of the outgoing president. Among the brevity was a section detailing his desire to see legislation passed to maintain an orderly use of A.I. and other programs. The idea remains aspirational and perfectly mirrors the simultaneous “end” of social media app TikTok, which was accused of manipulating vulnerable minds. Ironically, things have only gotten worse for places like TikTok and YouTube in the time since as manmade content has become forced to compete with doctored images presenting scenarios that never existed. Are people falling for them? Comments would suggest… kinda (?), but I pray this is all just a form of addiction that can be treated before anyone thinks of hiring A.I. actors and writers to deliver next summer’s biggest hit. The lack of willingness to invest in organic talent is upsetting, and I think it speaks to a potential loss of independent and creative thought among younger generations who haven’t been as encouraged to foster these skills.
I speak naively about the youth because I’m only in contact with family members in the still impressionable Gen Alpha age range. There is a core part of me that chooses to believe that kids are still curious enough to explore worlds beyond prompt generators. As someone who has had their own struggles with the internet making them feel isolated, I sympathize with that struggle, and I want to believe the real world for these people is much different than what is projected online, what is made fun of while creating stereotypes.
And yet, it’s hard growing up from such a young age encouraged to read and write only to observe statistics that suggest skills have been declining. It’s there in arguments stemming from poor media literacy skills, or my general fascination with the dead internet theory. In my mind, there is nothing more fruitful that a person can have than curiosity, an effort to constantly learn or explore. When everything is immediate, there is no time to consider a larger world. It’s why I sort of miss the nature of snail mail, which really required commitment to send scribbles to somebody’s house. You had to wait and, in doing so, really question if what you’re doing mattered or if you’d regret it right away. Reading inspires an active imagination to create the world on the page in your head. Sure, movies are nice, but the interiority of a text can change your life, feel emotions you’d never thought you could experience, and eventually make up your own world.
At the same time, I sympathize with the plight of the student. As someone with a B.A. in Creative Writing, I notice the pain of dedicating hours to research and compiling an essay for a significant portion of your grade. As someone who initially dropped out, I was one of those bad students who pulled together nonsense the night before, or even seven hours prior as the graveyard hours moved around me. As isolating as it can feel, I’m a supporter of returning to school later in life because I was more focused, more aware of passions that drove me. Even so, I still loathed “Paradise Lost” and am grateful to not be reading Old English anymore. Doing research you’re not passionate about is a chore. I understand for some that’s also between work and other commitments, but for those slacking off for the sake of slacking off, it makes no sense. Why are you in school if not for the challenge? You may wind up struggling and get a C, but it’s still better for your integrity. Earning your mediocre grade honestly removes any doubt about your character.
The surreality of life in 2025 has come down to questions about how far you’ll accept A.I. as your primary caregiver. People have used it in courtrooms. Twitter has launched Grok, which has infamously pushed hate speech. In several cases, there have even been people who have formed relationships with chatbots that have wound up encouraging them to commit suicide and form eating disorders. While these are hyper-specific examples, the fear is recognizable as the clear message becomes that people want relationships with what’s unreal. Computers can give you a curated experience, one that doesn’t challenge. My A.I. generated artwork amuses me like a chatbot comforts someone just wanting to share how their day was. For as much as I refuse to use the corner most associated with ChatGPT, I recognize how convenient it seems, even if the reward will be sorely lacking. I’m not sure if it’s radical, but I don’t even like the idea of asking ChatGPT for recommendations because there are articles written by people who have dedicated their lives to appreciating the medium and forming a greater community of like-minded interests. It may require reading and sometimes an unsuccessful trial and error, but it gives your time greater meaning in understanding another human’s worldview.
A.I. is unlikely to go away anytime soon. The unfortunate truth is that, beyond federal commentary, it’s impossible to read a political story online without knowing what the comments are like. Whereas it used to be hostile buzzwords, now it’s everyone creating their own smug, self-satisfying memes that have their own grotesque quality. There’s no heart in the reply, just a simple recognition from people with the same vindictive hearts wanting immediate gratification. I agree it’s easier to communicate frustration with a visual. I miss when it felt more monolithic, like even the misunderstood memes had this power to carry fascination over their obscure origins. Now it’s all soulless, creating the desired vulgarity but without any greater longevity. Nothing in those comment sections will match the “This is fine” image. Nothing will match just sloppily editing text underneath a couple walking by an attractive girl. Artistry is subjective, and sometimes I am not above those laughs. However, when it’s A.I. trying to “own” reality, it just seems shallow.
Much like other proponents of having Wi-Fi, it’s impossible to resist certain urges sometimes. There have been creative uses that actually come from valid curiosity. However, the larger programs could never be trusted as a resource. They’ll always manipulate their own world, isolating themselves from deeper thought or emotional curiosity. It may offer some good recommendations here or there, but is it creating a substantial human experience? I miss the world that could naively exist in public without having constant answers, where it was okay to stare off into the distance and not know what you’ll think about. I’m sure this still exists and I’m just a drama queen. At the same time, the internet isn’t convincing me it’s not.
At the end of the day, I hope it’s all a fad that goes away. I fear it’s going to sink its claws in and validate itself as the unnecessary evil that was pushed into our lives by people bored by the lack of innovation, who needed to challenge themselves not by conquering technology, but by letting it take over their very being. I want to abhor A.I. with all of my soul, but I’d also be lying if I said I never saw its rudimentary appeal. Yes, the videos are terrible and taking jobs away from real talent. Yes, it’s being used to promote hate speech in America. Yes, it’s creating a world that hasn’t cured its loneliness from the pandemic years. We’re even more isolated. It’s doing a lot that’s wrong. I hate that it’s a centerpiece to where life is in 2025. Ideally, regulation will not be far behind. Like half of the images topping Google’s image search, I doubt that’s true.
Comments
Post a Comment